jmdrake jmdrake_98 at yahoo.com
Mon Jan 27 15:38:16 EST 2003

gdpusch at NO.xnet.SPAM.com (Gordon D. Pusch) wrote in message news:<givg0fri02.fsf at pusch.xnet.com>...
> jmdrake_98 at yahoo.com (jmdrake) writes:
> > Richard S. Norman <rnorman at umich.edu> wrote in message news:<9cgavuoqegjfgckbf6dcom9snt1to85ui0 at 4ax.com>...
> > > And anyone who claims to work with
> > > antigravity is deserving the label "crank".
> > 
> > Then are you ready to add NASA to your "crank" list?
> > 
> > http://popularmechanics.mondosearch.com/cgi-bin/MsmGo.exe?grab_id=21872586&EXTRA_ARG=&CFGNAME=MssFind%2Ecfg&host_id=1&page_id=2900&query=antigravity&hiword=ANTIGRAVITY+
> 1.)  You are using "Argument From Authority" --- a known logical fallacy.

Bullcrap.  You're using the "guilt by association" argument which is
even more of a fallacy!  Your argument is that because some people
who are investigating this believe in UFOs that somehow ALL who are
investigating this fall into that category.  That's just silly.
> 2.)  Your link is not to NASA, but rather to _Popular Mechanics_ --- 
>    a publication whose credibility and reporting accuracy has degenerated
>    to to point that it is now on the par of _The National Enquirer_.

Bullcrap # 2.  You're coming to this discussion a day late (well rather
a month and a half late) and a dollar short.  Long ago I provide links
from NASA's own site!  So to try to argue against the link I provided
is just goofy.  But just to satisfy your infantile curiosity here's
the link from NASA.  Happy now?

> 3.)  The quality of science and engineering at NASA are also no longer what
>   they once were. Some of the "research" NASA is funding these days under its 
>   so-called "Breakthrough Propulsion Programm" is indeed crackpot nonsense.
> -- Gordon D. Pusch   

Bullcrap #3.  First your charecterization of the "Breakthrough Propulsion
Program" is itself utter crackpot nonsense.  That project is based on
investigating "what ifs".  Such "what ifs" will have to be considered
if interstellar space travel ever becomes reality.  Most of the projects
they are investigating have already been scientifically proven (such as
the existence of antimatter.)  And the scientists at NASA look at
"breakthrough" with a very critical eye.  The difference between them
and you is that they at least look with an OPEN critical eye.  They
have a page of explanations as to why certain "breakthroughs" don't

Second your third point is bullcrap because I'm talking about already
proven technology!  This isn't some "well if we can ever find enough
element X we can build it" warp drive.  Real people have done real
experiments with real results.  And the results so far have been
that it can be explained simply by ion wind.  Does that mean it's
antigravity?  Nope.  Just that there must be something at work other
than ion wind.  What is "crackpot" is to assume, as you seem to have,
that the only two possibilities are ion wind and antigravity.


John M. Drake

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list